coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in San Cesareo (Rome).
5.  P.C. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to A.C.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 3 March 1986, the owner informed her of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 12 June 1986, which was made enforceable on 6 November 1986, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
8.  On 30 April 1990, a notice was served on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
9.  On 18 May 1990, a notice was served on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 July 1990.
10.  Between 11 July 1990 and 5 October 1999, the bailiff made thirty attempts to recover possession, but they proved unsuccessful as the owner and then the applicant were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
11.  On 21 June 1991, the applicant became the owner of the flat and pursued the enforcement proceedings
12.  On 13 October 1997, he made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
13.  On 2 May 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Bielsko-Biała, Poland.
5.  In 1993 the Szczecin Regional Court annulled the decision given in 1947 by the Szczecin Military Court which had convicted the applicant’s father and had sentenced him to imprisonment and the forfeiture of his property.
6.  On 25 September 1995 the Szczecin Regional Court (Criminal Chamber) awarded the applicant compensation for his father’s imprisonment.
7.  On 20 July 1995 the applicant initiated before the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojwódzki w Szczecinie) civil proceedings against the State Treasury. He claimed compensation for the forfeited estate and farm machinery.
8.  On 25 September 1995, upon the trial court’s request, the applicant called as defendant the State Treasury represented by the Bydgoszcz Regional Court.
9.  In January 1996 the trial court requested the Criminal Chamber of the same court to provide the applicant’s case-file. It received the file in September 1996.
10.  On 10 February 1999 the trial court held the first hearing at which it heard the applicant. It further decided that three witnesses would be heard by the Myslibórz District Court.
11.  On 23 March and 13 April 1999 the Myslibórz District Court held hearings at which it heard the witnesses.
12.  On 4 August 1999 the applicant applied to the trial court to give a partial judgment relating only to the pecuniary damage sustained by his father in respect of loss of income which, according to him, was fully justified by the provided documents.
13.  On 14 February 2000 the trial court joined as a co-defendant the Minister of Finance. Three months later the trial court joined as another co‑defendant the Minister of the Treasury.
14.  On 6 September 2000 the court held hearing at which it asked for an expert opinion concerning the value of the farm machinery.
15.  On 8 May 2001 the expert opinion was submitted to the trial court.
16.  On 18 May 2001 the court requested another expert opinion concerning the value of the land and buildings.
17.  On 17 October 2001 the trial court held a hearing.
18.  On 29 October 2001 the Szczecin Regional Court gave a partial judgment. It awarded the applicant PLN 21,105 as compensation for the confiscated machinery. The remaining part of the action was to be examined at the later date. The Minister of the Treasury appealed against this judgment.
19.  On 21 May 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the Minister’s appeal against the Szczecin Regional Court’s partial judgment. The Minister of the Treasury lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. This part of the proceedings is pending before the Supreme Court.
20.  The proceedings relating to the part of the applicant’s action which was not examined by the Szczecin Regional Court in its partial judgment, are still pending before the trial court.
6.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Poznań.
7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
8.  On 10 September 1985 the applicant lodged a compensation claim with the Poznań Regional Court, claiming PLZ (old Polish zlotys) 1,530,000 from the military hunting association “P.” for unpaid salary. Later on, he extended his claim to PLZ 4,138,729.
9.  The court held a hearing on 2 December 1985.
10.  By a decision of 16 January 1986, the court stayed the proceedings at the applicant’s request, having regard to the fact that criminal proceedings had been instituted against him. The civil proceedings were resumed on an unspecified date in 1987.
11.  The court held hearings on 9 September 1987, 3 December 1987, 7 January 1988 and 21 January 1988.
12.  On an unspecified date in 1991 the court ordered an expert opinion.
13.  Another expert opinion was ordered by virtue of a decision of 14 January 1995.
14.  In a letter of 8 December 1997 the applicant requested the court to adjourn the hearing scheduled on 16 December 1997 due to his bad health.
15.  In 1997 the applicant requested the court to order a further expert opinion and he paid an advance fee for it in January 1998. Apparently, the court failed to order the relevant opinion.
16.  By a decision of 9 March 1998 the court stayed the proceedings as the applicant was ill. The proceedings were resumed on an unspecified date in 2001.
17.  The court held hearings on 24 April and 23 August 2001.
18.  By virtue of a court settlement concluded on an unspecified date, on 14 December 2001 the applicant received a partial compensation from the military hunting association.
19.  By a decision of 18 December 2001 the Poznań Regional Court terminated the proceedings as the applicant had withdrawn his claim.
6.  The applicant, Krzysztof Pieniążek, is a Polish national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Gdynia, Poland.
7.  On 3 July 1989 the applicant and his wife obtained a divorce decree. On 14 July 1989 the applicant filed with the Ełk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition for division of the matrimonial property. On 8 September 1989 the case was transferred to the Gdynia District Court.
8.  On 14 April 1992 the court gave a preliminary decision (postanowienie wstępne). Before 1 May 1993 the court held nine hearings and heard evidence from several witnesses. The court also obtained evidence from two experts.
9.  On 14 June and 28 June 1993 the court held hearings. On 5 July 1993 the Gdynia District Court delivered another preliminary decision. It was upheld on 6 October 1993 by the Gdańsk Regional Court.
10.  On 21 July 1993, in reply to the applicant's complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings, the President of the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), informed him that the delay was caused by the process of obtaining evidence. The trial court held further hearings on 29 April, 20 May, 10 and 28 June 1994.
11.  On 8 July 1994 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. Between 6 February and 15 December 1997 the court held eight hearings. In 1998 the trial court held six hearings.
12.  On 12 October 1998 the Gdynia District Court gave a decision. It was served on the applicant on 19 March 1999. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision on 1 April 1999. On 28 October 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court granted the applicant a total exemption from the court fees due for lodging an appeal.
13.  On 12 December 2000, 23 February and 29 March 2001 the Regional Court held hearings. On 12 April 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court delivered a final decision. The applicant's subsequent cassation appeal against that decision was rejected as being inadmissible in law.
15.  On 2 February 1985 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody. He was accused of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). On 18 March 1985 the Ankara Martial Law Court (Sıkıyönetim Mahkemesi) ordered the applicant's detention on remand.
16.  On 26 February 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Ankara Martial Law Court setting out charges against seven hundred and twenty-three defendants, including the applicant. The military prosecutor accused the applicant of membership of an organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime, contrary to Articles 146 § 1 and 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
17.  After martial law was lifted, the Ankara Martial Law Court took the name of the Martial Law Court attached to the 4th Army Corps.
18.  On 19 July 1989 the Martial Law Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to death penalty. The applicant appealed against the conviction and the case was referred to the Military Court of Cassation (Askeri Yargıtay).
19.  Following promulgation of the Law of 26 December 1994, which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) acquired jurisdiction over the cases and the files were sent to it.
20.  On 6 February 1995 the applicant was released pending trial.
21.  On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant's conviction.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Salerno.
5.  He is the owner of a flatt in Salerno, which he had let to R.C.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 3 May 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 November 1990 and summoned her to appear before the Salerno Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 15 May 1990, which was made enforceable on 1 June 1990, the Salerno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1991.
8.  On 28 January 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
9.  On 6 April 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 April 1992.
10.  On 21 April 1992 the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession that proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
11.  On 27 January 1997, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
12.  Pursuant to article 6 of Law no. 431/98, the Salerno Magistrate suspended the eviction proceedings until 19 November 1999.
13.  On 20 October 1999, he served a second notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 November 1999.
14.  On 19 November 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicants were respectively born in 1962, 1932 and 1934 and live in Florence.
5.  They are the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to P.V.
6.  In a registered letter of 25 July 1983, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 April 1984 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 April 1984, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 11 May 1984, which was made enforceable on 13 June 1984, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 11 May 1985.
9.  The tenant asked the Florence Magistrate that the enforcement be postponed.
10.  On 21 June 1985, the Florence Magistrate ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1986.
11.  On 5 June 1986, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 23 June 1986, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 3 September 1986.
13.  Between 3 September 1986 and 16 December 1998, the bailiff made thirty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  On 12 July 1999, pursuant to article 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked the Florence District Court to suspend the eviction proceedings.
15.  On 9 April 2001, the tenant died and his son refused to leave the flat.
16.  On 11 May 2001, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. The next attempt was deferred to 16 October 2001.
17.  Between 16 October 2001 and 21 November 2002, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
18.  On 3 March 2003, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicants were respectively born in 1951 and 1952 and live in Messina.
5.  They are the owners of a flat in Milan, which they had let to F.G.
6.  In a registered letter of 29 April 1993, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 December 1993 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  The tenant told the applicants that he would not leave the premises.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 30 June 1993, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 28 October 1993, which was made enforceable on 8 November 1993, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 January 1996.
10.  On 6 February 1996, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On an unspecified date, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 March 1996.
12.  Between 15 March 1996 and 21 September 2001, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 29 January 2002 and on 16 April 2002, the bailiff made two attempts to recover possession which proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  In July 2002, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
6.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Rome.
7.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to P.C. who lived with his sister L.C.
8.  In a registered letter of 22 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
9.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 October 1983, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
11.  By a decision of 18 November 1983, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1984.
12.  On 24 February 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant's sister.
13.  In the meanwhile, the tenant had died and the applicant required the tenant's sister to vacate the premises.
14.  On 15 May 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant's sister informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 May 1986.
15.  Between 20 May 1986 and 16 December 1998, the bailiff made forty-nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  On 12 September 1998, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son.
17.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended first until 28 June 1999 and then until 20 April 2000.
18.  On 13 October 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Padua.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Battipaglia, which he had let to E.T.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 July 1991, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Eboli Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 15 July 1991, which was made enforceable on 4 September 1991, the Eboli Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 March 1992.
8.  On 30 May 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
9.  On 11 August 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 26 August 1994.
10.  On 26 August 1994, the bailiff made an attempt to recover possession which proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
11.  Thereafter, the applicant decided not to pursue the enforcement proceedings, given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police.
12.  On 11 November 1999, the applicant resumed the proceedings. He served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
13.  On 1 December 1999, the tenant instituted civil proceedings before the Salerno District Court contesting the enforcement proceedings.
14.  According to the last information provided by the applicant, pursuant the entry into force of Law Decree no 450 of 27 December 2001, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until the 30 June 2002.
15.  On 15 November 2002 the applicant had not yet recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicants were respectively born in 1938, 1943 and 1948 and live in Rome.
5.  The applicants' father was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to C.C.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 January 1984, the applicants' father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 17 April 1984, which was made enforceable on 2 May 1984, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 16 April 1985.
8.  On 10 March 1985, the applicants' father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
9.  On 3 April 1987, the applicants' father served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 12 May 1987.
10.  On 14 February 1992, the applicants' father died and they inherited the flat. Subsequently they became parties to the eviction proceedings.
11.  Between 12 May 1987 and 15 February 2000, the bailiff made fifty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as neither the applicants' father nor themselves were entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
12. On an unspecified date in February 2000, reaching an agreement with the tenant, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
8.  The applicant is an Italian limited company, settled in Naples.
9.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Naples, which it had let to B.L.
On an unspecified date, the applicant informed the tenant that it intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 March 1984, the applicant reiterated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate. The Magistrate declared that it was not competent to examine the matter, following which it was transferred to the Naples Tribunal.
11.  By a decision of 8 July 1988, the Tribunal confirmed that the rent contract had expired on 31 December 1983. It ordered the tenant to vacate the premises by 28 June 1989.
12.  On 4 February 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 February 1991
13.  On 12 November 1990, the applicant once more required the tenant to vacate the premises.
14. Between 19 February 1991 and 9 October 1997, the bailiff made twenty-eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On an unspecified date in September 1998, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
8.  The applicant was born in 1920 and lived in Florence.
9.  Until 1992, she was the owner of a flat in Florence, which she had let to A.P.
10.  After that date, by contract, she kept a life and controlling interest (usufrutto) in the flat, i.e. the right to use it and derive any benefits therefrom. Her representative, Mrs A.M. Foti, had the title (nuda proprietà) over that flat.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 23 November 1982, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 3 October 1983, which was made enforceable on 16 December 1983, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 December 1984. At the tenant’s request the Magistrate postponed the deadline for vacation to an unspecified date.
13.  On 30 September 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
14.  On 2 November 1987, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 December 1987.
15.  Between 9 December 1987 and 16 September 1998, the bailiff made twenty-four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  On 12 July 1999, the tenant requested the Florence District Court to set a fresh date for the enforcement of the order for possession pursuant to Section 6 of Law No. 431/98. The Court set the date for 26 January 2001.
17.  On 7 November 1999, the applicant died and Mrs A.M. Foti acquired full interest in the flat as she was the owner with all the rights over the flat. Subsequently, she also became a part of the eviction proceedings.
18.  According to the last information provided by Mrs A. M. Foti in her fax of 15 November 2002, the Florence District Court has now set the new date for 15 January 2004 for the enforcement of the order for possession with the assistance of the police.
19.  As of today, Mrs A.M. Foti has not yet recovered possession of the flat.